UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN INDIANA
College of Business
MNGT 443.001
Organization Theory and Design
Spring 2009
TR 1200n-115p OC 2027
Dane M. Partridge, Ph.D.
OC 3066C
465-7085
465-1044 (fax)
dpartrid@usi.edu
http://business.usi.edu/dpartrid/
Office Hours:
TR 930-1145a
and by appt.
INTRODUCTION AND LEARNING OBJECTIVES
This course involves the management challenge of designing organizational structure to facilitate
effective performance and achieve competitive advantage given the evolving nature of organizational
environments. Issues will include organizational innovation and change; technological change and
organizational restructuring; global competition; organizational culture; employee involvement,
participative management, and team systems; total quality management; and organizational
control, communication, and conflict. Particular attention will be devoted to the implications of
information technology and e-business for the structure and design of the 21st century
organization.
Following completion of this course, students should be able to:














Describe the relationship between organizational theory and organizational design and
change, and differentiate between organizational structure and culture
Describe the agency problem that exists in all authority relationships and the various
mechanisms, such as the board of directors and stock options, which can be used to help
control illegal and unethical managerial behavior
Describe how and why an organization seeks to adapt to and control the forces in their
environment so as to reduce uncertainty
Describe the basic organizational design challenges confronting managers
Discuss the issues involved in designing a hierarchy to coordinate and motivate
organizational behavior most effectively
Explain why most organizations initially have a functional structure and why, over time,
problems arise that require a change to a more complex structure
Understand how an organization’s culture, like its structure, can be designed or managed
Appreciate the importance of linking strategy to structure and culture at the functional-,
business-, and corporate level to increase the ability to create value
Understand how technology needs to be matched to organizational structure if an
organization is to be effective
Understand the relationship among organizational change, redesign, and organizational
effectiveness
Describe the typical problems that arise as an organization grows and matures, and how an
organization must change if it is to survive and prosper
Explain how organizations can use knowledge management and information technology to
promote organizational learning to improve the quality of decision making
Understand the steps involved in creating an organizational setting that fosters innovation
and creativity
Appreciate the importance of managing an organization’s power structure to overcome
1
organizational inertia, and to bring about the type of change that promotes performance
College of Business Skill Development
As a part of the College’s strategic planning process, learning goals/educational objectives have
been identified (see http://www.usi.edu/business/strategic/learning.asp). This course will help to
develop students’ critical thinking skills, oral and written communication skills, ethical decisionmaking skills, and analytical problem-solving skills.
Note: MNGT 305, Principles of Management, is the prerequisite for this course; MNGT 315,
Organizational Behavior, is recommended as well (but not required).
READINGS
Students should obtain the following book:
Jones, Gareth R. Organizational Theory, Design, and Change, 5e (Prentice-Hall, 2007).
Copies of the text should be available for purchase in the Bookstore. Students are also expected
to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal; subscription forms will be available from the instructor.
Any other assigned readings will be available from the instructor’s website or the Rice Library
online databases. Supplements to the course outline and reading assignments may be distributed
during the session.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS, METHODS OF EVALUATION, AND RESPONSIBILITIES
In addition to the required reading assignments, there will be four exams, several individual and
group case assignments, and an organizational analysis and written case study. Given that the
case assignments are primarily for the purpose of class discussion, any that are turned in late will
be penalized by 50% (and any late assignments must be submitted no later than one week
following the original due date). The group case assignments will be primarily (although not
necessarily exclusively) in-class assignments; any in-class assignment missed by a student due to
absence must be submitted within one week.
Grading will be determined on the basis of the following weights:
Exams (4 @ 15% each)
60%
Organizational analysis
20%
Group case assignments
and supplemental reading briefings
10%
Individual case assignments, supplemental reading
briefings, and class participation
10%
Regular attendance is recommended, as the required readings and class meetings are intended to
be complements, not substitutes. The required reading is the foundation for the course; the class
meetings and cases will build on that foundation. On the exams, students will be responsible for
both material covered by the readings and material discussed in class. Students are expected to
keep up with the required reading, as assigned, and to come to class prepared for discussion and
with any questions concerning the reading. Students are reminded that under the credit hour
system a three-credit class requires on average six hours of outside preparation per week. While
research indicates that the average U.S. college student spends less time in outside study and
class preparation than the instructor might expect, when full-time students devote only part-time
effort to their coursework, less-than-desired outcomes may well result.
2
Students often observe that they would like their classes to “better relate to the real world.” For
students to apply what they have learned in the classroom to actual work environments students
have responsibility for active, rather than passive, involvement in the learning process. The
instructor’s role in active or experiential learning is to serve as a facilitator of student-directed
learning, rather than being the provider of teacher-directed instruction. Some have called this a
shift from “teaching by talking” toward “learning by doing.” The responsibility for learning is borne
by the learner, while the teacher makes resources available and helps the learning process. This
instructor’s primary objective with respect to this course is that students will acquire knowledge,
skills, and abilities that will make them more competitive in the job market and more effective
members of the organizations they join upon graduation.
As one college president has put it, “[I]t isn't enough just to learn -- one must learn how to learn,
how to learn without classrooms, without teachers, without textbooks. Learn, in short, how to
think and analyze and decide and discover and create…. [W]hile mastery of specific content is
important, we want our graduates to learn how to think critically and creatively, express
themselves coherently, work collaboratively, and develop a global consciousness…. A college is not
a trade school. A college education ultimately must be designed to help students develop the skills
needed to become lifelong learners, capable of finding new information, evaluating it, and using it
in both the real world and the world of the mind.”
Organizational Analysis
The organizational analysis and written case study will involve collecting and analyzing information
about an organization selected at the beginning of the semester and studied throughout the
course; your findings will be presented to your colleagues during the latter portion of the semester.
The “Analyzing the Organization: Design Module Assignment” at the end of each chapter in the
text provides a framework for your analysis. Your analysis will consist of answers to selected
questions from the Design Modules (there are close to 100 questions to choose from at the end of
the 14 chapters). Your final report should be typed, double-spaced, 10-12 pages in length (not
including title page and references), and is due no later than April 30. You may choose to work in
a team of 3-4 students on the project; team reports should be typed, double-spaced, 15-20 pages in
length (not including title page and references). Note: this project involves analyzing an
organization, not simply describing an organization. In recent semesters students have come to
rely too heavily on company-produced information such as that found on the company website.
Students are cautioned, therefore, to collect information from a variety of sources – over-reliance
on any single source, such as a company website, will negatively affect the evaluation of the paper.
Further details of these requirements and grading procedures will be discussed in class as is
necessary. Students are encouraged to stop in during office hours to talk about any problems or
suggestions you may have concerning the course, about careers or graduate school, or just about
management or things in general. If the scheduled office hours are inconvenient feel free to make
an appointment. To underscore the value of office hours, each student will be expected to meet
briefly with Dr. Partridge early in the semester. To facilitate electronic communication, students
are requested to schedule this initial appointment via e-mail. Please be reminded that USI
provides free e-mail for students through MyUSI. The University routinely uses this USI e-mail
account for both formal and informal communications with students. Students are expected to
check their USI e-mail account regularly for University correspondence. If you prefer to use
an e-mail account other than the one provided you by USI, you should forward your USI e-mail to
the account you use most often.
WHAT (SOME) STUDENTS HAVE LIKED LEAST…

“Too many supplemental readings”
3


“Too many student presentations – boring to listen to and I’m not sure what I’m supposed
to be getting from them”
o First, the briefings are intended to reinforce students’ analytical and communication
skills: every USI business graduate should be able to read a Wall Street Journal or
Harvard Business Review article, identify the key points (the implications for
managers), and communicate those points effectively to their colleagues. Second,
consistent with the active learning approach, if you’re not sure what the point of a
briefing is (the “so what”), ask! All supplemental readings are intended to reinforce,
elaborate upon, or provide additional examples of material contained in the text and
lecture.
“Being randomly called on”
o Exams aren’t optional, projects aren’t optional, why should participation be voluntary?
Student Rights and Responsibilities: Academic Misconduct
Truth and honesty are necessary to a university community. Each student is expected to do his or
her academic work without recourse to unauthorized means of any kind. Both students and
faculty are expected to report violations to academic honesty. USI policies and regulations
governing the conduct of students and the procedures for handling violations of these policies and
regulations are found in the USI Bulletin and on the Dean of Students' website
(http://www.usi.edu/stl/index.htm).
Students are reminded of the College of Business
expectations regarding the avoidance of plagiarism; plagiarism includes:
(1) failing to cite quotations and borrowed ideas,
(2) failing to enclose borrowed language in quotation marks, and
(3) failing to put summaries and paraphrases in your own words.
(Source: Diana Hacker, A Pocket Style Manual, 2e, Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997, p. 92.)
Students are specifically reminded that electronically copying text from a source document, such
as a web page, and pasting that into one’s own document without putting the borrowed language
in quotation marks is plagiarism, even if the source of that language is included in an in-text
citation and reference list. Simply put, borrowed language must be set off in quotation marks.
Furthermore, borrowed ideas require in-text citation the same as borrowed language. Note well –
failure to use appropriate in-text referencing of either borrowed language or borrowed ideas is
unacceptable, regardless of the inclusion of a reference list.
Even if language and/or ideas borrowed from a secondary source are appropriately referenced,
College of Business faculty expect more from students. Copying and pasting someone else’s words
and ideas into a document file does not demonstrate your understanding of the material.
Secondary sources are appropriate and necessary for a research project, but your contribution
should involve more than simply assembling the words and ideas of others.
THE INSTRUCTOR
DANE M. PARTRIDGE -- Associate Professor of Management; B.A., Michigan State University; M.S.,
Cornell University; Ph.D., Cornell University. Dr. Partridge's primary teaching and research interests
involve human resource management and labor relations. His research has been published in the
Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, the Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, the Journal of Labor Research, and the Denver University Law Review. Current research
areas include the effect of picket-line misconduct on the reinstatement rights of strikers. Dr.
Partridge’s recent presentations to the community include current developments in business ethics
and corporate social responsibility. Dr. Partridge has also taught at Virginia Tech, Radford
University, and Roanoke College, and has received several awards for teaching excellence.
4
COURSE OUTLINE, TENTATIVE SCHEDULE, AND SUPPLEMENTAL READING
Note: only those supplemental readings marked with a “*” are assigned to all; others will be divided
for presentation by individual students. Those readings marked with a “@” will be divided for
presentation by a pair of students. Readings presentations by individuals or teams should briefly
summarize the several key points and implications for managers; these presentations will be
expected to make use of a visual aid such as a PowerPoint slide.
1. ORGANIZATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS (1/13, 1/15)
 “Corporate America Confronts the Meaning Of a ‘Core’ Business,” Wall Street Journal,
November 9, 1999. (*)
 C.K. Prahalad and Venkatram Ramaswamy, “Co-opting Customer Competence,” Harvard
Business Review, January-February 2000. (@)
 “Dot-coms: What Have We Learned?” Fortune, October 30, 2000. (*)
 “America Isn’t Ready [Here’s What to Do About It],” Fortune, July 25, 2005. (*)
2. STAKEHOLDERS, MANAGERS, AND ETHICS (1/20, 1/22)
 Eric M. Pillmore, “How We’re Fixing Up Tyco,” Harvard Business Review, December 2003. (@)
 “Democracy Looks for an Opening – In the Boardroom,” Wall Street Journal, March
22, 2004.
 “Behind Wave of Corporate Fraud, A Change in How Auditors Work,” Wall Street Journal,
March 24, 2004.
 David A. Nadler, “Building Better Boards,” Harvard Business Review, May 2004. (@)
 Lynn Paine, Rohit Deshpande, Joshua D. Margolis, and Kim Eric Bettcher, “Up to Code: Does
Your Company’s Conduct Meet World-Class Standards?” Harvard Business Review, December
2005. (@)
 “Four Years Later, Enron’s Shadow Lingers as Change Comes Slowly,” New York Times,
January 5, 2006.
3. MANAGING IN A CHANGING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT (1/27, 1/29)
 Case Study: “Can this merger be saved?” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1999.
(*)
 “Does Everybody Have to Own Everything?” Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2000.
 “More Companies Cut Risk by Collaborating With Their ‘Enemies’,” Wall Street Journal,
January 31, 2000.
 Kathleen M. Eisenhardt and D. Charles Galunic, “Coevolving: At Last, A Way to Make
Synergies Work,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 2000. (@)
 Dennis Carey, “A CEO Roundtable on Making Mergers Succeed,” Harvard Business Review,
May-June 2000. (@)
 “The Barons of Outsourcing,” Business Week, August 28, 2000. (*)
 “Limits of the New Corporation,” Business Week, August 28, 2000. (*)
 “Big Mergers of ‘90s Prove Disappointing to Shareholders,” Wall Street Journal, October 30,
2000.
 “Facing Crisis, Media Giants Scrounge for Fresh Strategies,” Wall Street Journal, January 14,
2003.
 “Made to Measure: Invisible Supplier Has Penney’s Shirts All Buttoned Up,” Wall Street
Journal, September 11, 2003.
 Mihir A. Desai, C. Fritz Foley, and James R. Hines, Jr., “Venture Out Alone,” Harvard
Business Review, March 2004.
 “After Landing Huge Navy Pact, EDS Finds It’s In Over Its Head,” Wall Street Journal, April 6,
2004.
 “In Bow to Retailers’ New Clout, Levi Strauss Makes Alterations,” Wall Street Journal, June
17, 2004.
5


















Jeffrey K. Liker and Thomas Y. Choi, “Building Deep Supplier Relationships,” Harvard
Business Review, December 2004. (@)
“As Viacom Ponders a Breakup, Industry Rethinks Old Notions,” Wall Street Journal, March
17, 2005.
“How Eli Lilly’s Monster Deal Faced Extinction – but Survived,” Wall Street Journal, April 27,
2005.
“The Laptop Trail,” Wall Street Journal, June 9, 2005.
Philip Evans and Bob Wolf, “Collaboration Rules,” Harvard Business Review, July-August
2005. (@)
“For Adidas, Reebok Deal Caps Push to Broaden Urban Appeal,” Wall Street Journal, August
4, 2005.
“Ford Seeks Big Savings by Overhauling Supply System,” Wall Street Journal, September 29,
2005.
Ravi Aron and Jitendra V. Singh, “Getting Offshoring Right,” Harvard Business Review,
December 2005. (@)
“Behind Sony-Samsung Rivalry, An Unlikely Alliance Develops,” Wall Street Journal, January
3, 2006.
“How Amazon’s Dream Alliance With Toys ‘R’ Us Went So Sour,” Wall Street Journal, January
23, 2006.
“A Reborn AT&T To Buy BellSouth,” Wall Street Journal, March 6, 2006.
Case Study: “Eliminate the Middleman?” Harvard Business Review, March 2006. (*)
“GM’s Chinese Partner Looms as a New Rival,” Wall Street Journal, April 20, 2007.
Jonathan Hughes and Jeff Weiss, “Simple Rules for Making Alliances Work,” Harvard
Business Review, November 2007. (@)
“Boeing Scrambles to Repair Problems With New Plane,” Wall Street Journal, December 7,
2007.
“Mining Firms Bulk Up, Echoing Big Oil Mergers,” Wall Street Journal, December 18, 2007.
Rosabeth Moss Kanter, “Transforming Giants,” Harvard Business Review, January 2008. (@)
“Rebuilding After a Catastrophe,” Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2008.
4. BASIC CHALLENGES OF ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN (2/3, 2/5)

"Tools That Make Business Better and Better," Fortune, December 23, 1996. (*)

“Just Think: No Permission Needed,” Fortune, January 8, 2001. (*)

EXAM I (2/10)
5. DESIGNING ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE: AUTHORITY AND CONTROL (2/12, 2/17)

Sumantra Ghoshal and Christopher A. Bartlett, "Changing the Role of Top Management:
Beyond Structure to Processes," Harvard Business Review, January-February 1995. (@)

John Pound, "The Promise of the Governed Corporation," Harvard Business Review, MarchApril 1995. (@)

Christopher A. Bartlett and Sumantra Ghoshal, "Changing the Role of Top Management:
Beyond Systems to People," Harvard Business Review, May-June 1995. (@)

Chris Argyris, “Empowerment: The emperor's new clothes,” Harvard Business Review, MayJune 1998. (@)

Suzy Wetlaufer, “Organizing for empowerment: An interview with AES's Roger Sant and
Dennis Bakke,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1999. (@)

“The Anti-Control Freak,” Fortune, November 26, 2001. (*)

Robert Herbold, “Inside Microsoft,” Harvard Business Review, January 2002. (@)

“Ballmer Unbound,” Fortune, January 26, 2004. (*)

“Despite Revamp, Unwieldy Unilever Falls Behind Rivals,” Wall Street Journal, January 3,
2005.

“Battling Google, Microsoft Changes How It Builds Software,” Wall Street Journal,
6



September 23, 2005.
Ron Ashkenas, “Simplicity-Minded Management,” Harvard Business Review, December
2007. (*)
“My Way or the Highway at Hyundai,” Business Week, March 6, 2008.
“Schultz’s Second Act Jolts Starbucks,” Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2008.
6. DESIGNING ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE: SPECIALIZATION AND COORDINATION (2/19,
2/24)

Joan Magretta, “The power of virtual integration: An interview with Dell Computer's
Michael Dell,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1998. (@)

Durward K. Sobek II, Jeffrey K. Liker, Allen C. Ward, “Another look at how Toyota
integrates product development,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 1998. (@)

Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell. “Desperately seeking synergy,” Harvard Business
Review, September-October 1998. (@)

Thomas W. Malone and Robert J. Laubacher, “The dawn of the e-lance economy,” Harvard
Business Review, September-October 1998. (@)

John Hagel III and Marc Singer. “Unbundling the corporation,” Harvard Business Review.
March-April 1999. (@)

Michael Hammer and Steven Stanton, “How process enterprises really work,” Harvard
Business Review, November-December 1999. (@)

“Management by Web,” Business Week, August 28, 2000. (*)

Michael E. Raynor, “Lead From the Center,” Harvard Business Review, May 2001. (@)

Case: “Feed R&D – Or Farm It Out?” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2005. (*)

“HP Says Goodbye to Drama,” Business Week, September 12, 2005.

“Hurd’s Big Challenge at H-P: Overhauling Corporate Sales,” Wall Street Journal, April 3,
2006.

David A. Garvin and Lynne C. Levesque, “The Multiunit Enterprise,” Harvard Business
Review, June 2008. (@)
7. CREATING AND MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE (2/26)

Rich Teerlink, “Harley’s Leadership U-Turn,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2000.
(@)

“Report Cites Flawed NASA Culture,” Washington Post, August 26, 2003.

Case Study: “Oil and Wasser,” Harvard Business Review, May 2004. (*)

“How Shell’s Move To Revamp Culture Ended in Scandal,” Wall Street Journal, November 2,
2004.

“Deal Brings ‘Proctoids’ to ‘Plywood Ranch,’ Wall Street Journal, January 31, 2005.

“Behind Citigroup Departures: A Culture Shift by CEO Prince,” Wall Street Journal, August
24, 2005.

“’Way Forward’ Requires Culture Shift at Ford,” Wall Street Journal, January 23, 2006.

Ram Charan, “Home Depot’s Blueprint for Culture Change,” Harvard Business Review,
April 2006.

“Howard Stringer, Japanese CEO,” Wall Street Journal, March 3, 2007.

Hirotaka Tekeuchi, Emi Osono, and Norihiko Shimizu, “The Contradictions That Drive
Toyota’s Success,” Harvard Business Review, June 2008. (@)
 EXAM II (3/3)
8. ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN AND STRATEGY IN A CHANGING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
(3/5,3/17)

Ronald N. Ashkenas, Lawrence J. DeMonaco, Suzanne C. Francis, “Making the deal real:
How GE Capital integrates acquisitions,” Harvard Business Review, January-February
1998. (@)

David J. Collis and Cynthia A. Montgomery, “Creating corporate advantage,” Harvard
7
Business Review, May-June 1998. (@)
“At J&J, a Venerable Strategy Faces Questions,” Wall Street Journal, March 5, 1999.
“Uneasy Gun Makers Add Gentler Product Lines,” Wall Street Journal, March 25, 1999.
Donald F. Hastings, “Lincoln Electric’s harsh lessons from international expansion,”
Harvard Business Review, May-June 1999.
“Rx for Drug Companies: Get Hitched, Stat!” Wall Street Journal, November 4, 1999;
“Mergers Pose Debatable Cure For Diseases Of Drug Firms,” Wall Street Journal, November
12, 1999.
Pankaj Ghemawat and Fariborz Ghadar, “The Dubious Logic of Global Megamergers,”
Harvard Business Review, July-August 2000. (@)
Wilfried R. Vanhonacker, “A Better Way to Crack China,” Harvard Business Review, JulyAugust 2000.
“See the World, Erase Its Borders,” Business Week, August 28, 2000. (*)
“Reversing 80 Years of History, GM Is Reining In Global Fiefs,” Wall Street Journal, October
6, 2004.
“Retailers’ Appetite for Top Sellers Has Food Firms Slimming Down,” Wall Street Journal,
October 28, 2004.
Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, “How to Implement a New Strategy Without
Disrupting Your Organization,” Harvard Business Review, March 2006. (@)
“After Buying Binge, Nestle Goes on a Diet,” Wall Street Journal, July 23, 2007.











9. ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN, COMPETENCIES, AND TECHNOLOGY (3/19, 3/24)

Thomas H. Davenport, “Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system,” Harvard Business
Review, July-August 1998. (@)

David Kirkpatrick, “The Net Makes It All Easier—Including Exporting U.S. Jobs,” Fortune,
May 26, 2003. (*)

“Chrysler Gains Edge by Giving New Flexibility to Its Factories,” Wall Street Journal, April
11, 2006.
10. TYPES AND FORMS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE (3/26, 3/31)

Suzy Wetlaufer, “Driving change: An interview with Ford Motor Company's Jacques Nasser,”
Harvard Business Review, March/April 1999. (@)

Clayton M. Christensen and Michael Overdorf, “Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive
Change,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 2000. (@)

Michael Beer and Nitin Nohria, “Cracking the Code of Change,” Harvard Business Review,
May-June 2000. (@)

Eric Abrahamson, “Change Without Pain,” Harvard Business Review, July-August 2000. (@)

“Intel Promises Sweeping Overhaul Amid PC Slowdown, Rival’s Gains,” Wall Street Journal,
April 28, 2006.

John P. Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger, “Choosing Strategies for Change,” Harvard
Business Review, July-August 2008. (@)

EXAM III (4/2)
11.ORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS: BIRTH, GROWTH, DECLINE, AND DEATH (4/7,
4/9)

Greg Brenneman. “Right away and all at once: How we saved Continental,” Harvard
Business Review, September-October 1998. (@)

Donald N. Sull, “Why good companies go bad,” Harvard Business Review, July-August
1999. (@)
8





“The Mechanic Who Fixed Continental,” Fortune, December 20, 1999. (*)
Amar Bhide, “David and Goliath, Reconsidered,” Harvard Business Review, SeptemberOctober 2000.
“Inside the Revolution: Smart Mover, Dumb Mover,” Fortune, September 3, 2001.
“Amid JetBlue’s Rapid Ascent, CEO Adopts Big Rivals’ Traits,” Wall Street Journal, August
25, 2005.
Paul B. Carroll and Chunka Mui, “7 Ways to Fail Big,” Harvard Business Review,
September 2008. (@)
12. DECISION MAKING, LEARNING, KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY (4/14, 4/16)

Paul Sharpe and Tom Keelin, “How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource-allocation
decisions,” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1998. (@)

Sarah Cliffe, “Knowledge management: The well-connected business,” Harvard Business
Review, July-August 1998.

Morten T. Hansen, Nitin Nohria, Thomas Tierney, “What's your strategy for managing
knowledge?” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1999. (@)

“Getting employees to share their knowledge isn’t as simple as installing new software; Just
ask Buckman Labs.” Wall Street Journal, June 21, 1999.

Etienne C. Wenger and William M. Snyder, “Communities of Practice: The Organizational
Frontier,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 2000. (@)

“Knowledge Worth $1.25 Billion,” Fortune, November 27, 2000. (*)

David Garvin and Michael A. Roberto, “What You Don’t Know About Making Decisions,”
Harvard Business Review, September 2001. (@)

Diane L. Coutu, “The Anxiety of Learning,” Harvard Business Review, March 2002. (@)

“A Crash’s Improbable Impact,” Washington Post, January 12, 2007.

Amy C. Edmondson, “The Competitive Imperative of Learning,” Harvard Business Review,
July-August 2008. (@)
13. INNOVATION, INTRAPRENEURSHIP, AND CREATIVITY (4/21, 4/23)

Teresa M Amabile. “How to kill creativity,” Harvard Business Review, September-October
1998. (@)

“Xerox: The Downfall,” Business Week, March 5, 2001.

Robert L. Sutton, “The Weird Rules of Creativity,” Harvard Business Review, September
2001. (@)

Jerry Useem, “3M + GE = ?” Fortune, August 12, 2002. (*)

Martha Craumer, “The Sputtering R&D Machine,” Harvard Business Review, August 2002.
(@)

“By Learning From Failures, Lilly Keeps Drug Pipeline Full,” Wall Street Journal, April 21,
2004.

“P&G: Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks,” Fortune, May 31, 2004.

Richard Florida and Jim Goodnight, “Managing for Creativity,” Harvard Business Review,
July-August 2005. (@)

“Get Creative!” Business Week Special Report, August 1, 2005. (*)

“Can a Re-Engineered Kleenex Cure a Brand’s Sniffles?” Wall Street Journal, January 22,
2007.

Bala Iyer and Thomas H. Davenport, “Reverse Engineering Google’s Innovation Machine,”
Harvard Business Review, April 2008. (@)

Jean-Pierre Garnier, “Rebuilding the R&D Engine in Big Pharma,” Harvard Business Review,
May 2008. (@)

James I. Cash, Jr., Michael J. Earl, and Robert Morison, “Teaming Up to Crack Innovation
& Enterprise Integration,” Harvard Business Review, November 2008. (@)
9
14. MANAGING CONFLICT, POWER, AND POLITICS (4/28, 4/30)

FINAL EXAM: Thursday, May 7, 12n-200p
10